"Bruce W. Hoylman" wrote:
> >>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snip>
> Matthew> compiled enterprise app might only be 300Kb (and not just a
> Matthew> "report queue manager"). And 500Mb of memory? That's
> Matthew> tuppence in the server world anyway.
>
> This happens to be minimum numbers for working with a particular
> Application Server marketed by a well-known database vendor by the name
> of Oracle Corp.
;-) Could someone actually be using Oracle's Application Server!
> Matthew> I think it's exciting to think what an n-tier framework in
> Matthew> Perl might look like. IMHO, it should be more than just the
> Matthew> outgrowth of CPAN's contents.
>
> I agree, but I should be able to expand and contract this middle tier
> monster in a very similiar fashion. Hey, I want some functionality, get
> it, configure it, install use it, derive from it, whatever. On the
> other hand, if I don't want, I can wipe it out without horking up the
> entire system.
I agree with this. A pluggable architecture is nice. Incidentally,
that's what the J2EE platform offers as well. For instance; I don't have
to use JavaMail with EJB, or the Java Messaging System with EJB, or even
JDBC with EJB either etc. Those modules would not necessarily have to be
loaded into a JVM in order for me to use the rest of the framework.
Sounds to me that this would not be too hard to do in a Perl context
either.
I think in general the work gone into J2EE's specification and rationale
might be an excellent requirements model for a Perl n-tier equivalent.
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
